[Reader-list] On 'Khalq-e-Khuda'

[kirdar singh]

Dear Shuddha
You are lucky that your job takes you places and provides you all the
time in the world to research and write lengthy notes on Sarai. I am a
bit hard pressed for time and would only try to scratch from whatever
my old memory I have on this issue.

Your long treatise comparing Urdu/Persian/Arabic/Bengali is
impressive, but you are unneccesarily bent upon connecting the word
khalq with Khuda. What I am trying to say is that the world khalq has
been used in many other simpler and mundane contexts too. Khalq is not
always a creation of God (literally it maybe). If I write a phrase
such as "Khalqat hai tamashai" (which is incidentally from a couplet)
would it always mean "the creation of god is the spectator"? No, I
could probably be writing about the spectators of a football match.
Why do we have to seek and find divine/ethereal meanings in every
word. By the way, who says that khalq can be both singular or plural?
Can you give me an example of the use of it as both? I am not
convinced with your example. And where on earth did you find the
phrase "Khalq Allah" being used?? I maybe ignorant but I would like to
know a reference for my own knowledge.

Also, what are you going to do about words like Ikhlaq or Ikhlaqiyaat
(Ethics) which come from the same root - that doesn't carry the nuance
of God's creation. It would be interesting to read the older down-to
earth poets such Nazeer, Wali and others to see the variety of context
in which they have used both khalqat/makhlooq as well as the the
gender specifications of concepts.

Forget about the older classicist poets - some of today's great
Urdu/Persian/Islamicate poets are using these words in many different
contexts. Any way, this Karega/karegi is a non-issue to me, not
because I am a Urdu-wallah (which I am not), but because it doesn't
lead us anywhere. I know Sarai is a clearinghouse of ideas, but at
times our tangents are so multi-directional that one loses the fun in
trying to pick up the threads - so much time gets wasted here - I
would rather spend that time writing poetry or listening to good
music.

I apologize if my comment about your reporting from Istambol or
elsewhere rubs you on wrong side - I was only wondering if your
comments would carry the same weight if you wrote sitting in nowhere
(or in Punjabi Bagh). I have no problem if you wrote a travelogue from
Istambol - I really did enjoy those portions in your post. But when
you try to give a looking-down-upon-Delhi-from-Istambul perspective on
the issues at hand here, then it sounds a bit show-off.
Any way, enjoy yourself.

KS

On 9/11/07, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
> Dear Kirdar,
>
> many thanks for your thoughtful response to my rather playful and non
> serious response to Ramaswamy regarding the phrase 'khalq-e-khuda'. I
> will now try and respond with a degree of seriousness, in order to
> respect the irritation that you express at the looseness with which
> words and terms in urdu/persianate literature are often thrown around in
> discussion.
>
> The phrase khalq-e-khuda has an interesting career. 'Khalq' is an arabic
> term which denotes 'creation' (as Ramaswamy has pointed out), and is
> distinguished from 'Amr' (direction) as being one of the two primary
> functions of God - as 'Creator' and 'Director' of the universe. Iqbal
> himself does this in his The Islamic characterization of Allah is gender
> neutral. Contrary to what is commonly thought, 'Allah' in Islam is not a
> 'father'. This is quite in opposition to the Christian concept of God,
> where 'he' is quite strongly paternal. The Judaic 'YHWH' has a tendency
> towards paternity (because of the scattered references to divine
> 'paternity' in the Old Testament, but largely, for most variants of the
> Jewish faith, the sex of god is immaterial. And to speak of him in
> within an Islamic context in exculusively male terms is somewhat
> inappropriate. This is underscored by the fact that the foremost of
> divine attributes in Islam, mercy and compassion, expressed as 'rahman
> ir rahim' comes from the Arabic root 'rhm' which stands for a complex of
> meanings including womb, kinship, relationship etc. Clearly the
> compassion and mercy of god is matricial.
>
> Similarly, the 'Ayat' or signs of God are expressed in a feminine sense,
> and the 'Khalq' or creation are signs, aya of God's rahm. Humanity
> springs from Allah's desire, and is a sign of Allah's love. That is why
> the 'Khalq' can be seen as a part of a feminine complex of signification.
>
> In that sense, Khalq is what is 'made' or 'fashioned' by God. Hence,
> humanity, people, are God's consummate creation, his Khalq. Hence the
> phrase 'Khalq Allah' (God's creation - people) and Khalq-e-Khuda (same).
> The phrases are often used to indicate the special relationship that
> human beings have to god, whereby, even the simplest and poorest amongst
> us, in Islamic thought, are special to God. It is a universalization
> (and a universalizing, transcendental abrogation) of the older Judaic
> principle of the 'chosen people'. In Islam, everyone is called, all are
> chosen, but not all live up to the implications of the choice, or answer
> the call. Thus, the phrase, 'Khalq-e-Khuda' is a conventionl marking of
> the dignity of each human being, or human beings collectively, who,
> regardless of station, are seen as standing in a special relationship to
> God, requiring no mediation. In a way, it marks the very opposite of the
> notion of 'purity' or claims to specialness, as marks of dignity. The
> pure, imlplies the impure. The created however does not call into being
> the image or the idea of the uncreated. In Islam, there is nothing
> 'uncreated'. In other words, to be khalq, (arabic - > persian, creation,
> one does not have to be khalis (arabic - clear as in clear water,
> persian, pure). Createdness, mere being, and purity are two distinct
> categories that do not require any relationship to one another.
>
> Islamic ideas of democracy/anarchy have always priviledged the fact that
> the "Khalq Allah" are sovereign, because they bear the mark of divinely
> ordained dignity. That is why Kingship (a marking of one human being as
> superior to all others) has no scriptural sanction in Islam.
>
> However, it needs to be remembered that the phrase, 'Khayr-ul Khalq
> Allah' (the greatest amongst Gods creations/people) is designated as a
> singular way of identifying Mohammed as prophet. But he too represents
> only the 'Insaan Kaamil', the man made perfect, and this too does not
> mean that he is automatically raised above all humans. He too has to
> listen to his companions, to his wives, indeed he is and can be
> admonished by them when it becomes necessary.
>
> However, let us return to the word "Khalq"
>
> Khalq can be singular or plural. Man/Person or Persons/People. It is one
> of the rare nominative cases in Arabic that does not change its ending
> with a change from singular to plural. One infers its collective or
> singulative status from the context. When someone says, 'Khayr-ul Khalq
> Allah' it is clearly a reference to the singularity of the person of
> Mohammed as Prophet. When one says 'Khalq Allah' or Khalq e Khuda' it
> refers to an abstract collective entity - the people.
>
> In Arabic, the plural of some special nouns (regardless of whether the
> noun is grammatically masculine or feminine in the singular) is treated
> as feminine. Khalq (creation/created/people) is one such noun
>
> Now it is well known that Persian grammar (like Bengali) has no use for
> gender. Hence the well known confusions about the sex of the saqi (cup
> bearer), and aashiq (lover) in Urdu/Persian poetry. Hence also the
> hilarious confusion about the transmutations in the meaning of the
> phrase "Harjai" when it travels from Persian to Urdu/Hindustani/Punjabi.
>
> In Persian, Harjai (that which goes everywhere, is omnipresent) is a way
> of speaking about God. In Hindustani/Urdu/Punjabi - the word 'Harjai'
> because of the way in which the feminine ending 'i' is glossed together
> with a form of the infinitive 'jaana' (to go), when read in tandem with
> the qualifier 'Har' becomes - "she who goes everywhere/anywhere, with
> everyone/anyone" in other words - an euphemism for a female prostitute.
> In the slippage between languages, we can begin to see aspects of the
> divine even in a whore. And I like that. It bestows dignity and respect
> to sex work, and bespeaks a more civilized attitude to the person of the
> prostitute.
>
> But let us return to comparative grammar.
> Basically what we learn from this, and from other such examples is that
> Urdu and Arabic both have gender, while Persian does not. And generally,
> when Ideas travel from Arabic to Persian to Urdu we sometimes see the
> intermediate suspension of gender in the Persian, and the emergence of
> gender at either end.
>
> Thus the compound Arabo-Persian term 'Khalq e Khuda' (Khalq arabic,
> Khuda, persian) reverts to a (feminine) gendered reading, hence 'Raj
> Karegi (feminine verb ending) Khalq-e-Khuda' in Urdu, because Urdu i
> this case simply conforms to the rule of the feminine ending of the
> special plural noun 'Khalq'
>
> As far as I know Majma and Hujoom are not words in the same class as
> Khalq, probably (and I am speculating here) because they do not have to
> be read in terms of a theogony, which we cannot avoide doing when it
> comes to 'Khalq'
>
> Be whatever it may, we can safely say that in an
> Urdu-Persian-Arabic/slash islamicate context, when we invoke 'the
> people' the default invocation has a feminine register. I think it makes
> for an interesting way of challenging the patriarchal character of much
> of Islamicate culture (especially when this is done from within).
>
> I hope this helps clarify a few issues.
>
> Finally, a few remarks about what you have called 'Jargon'. Personally,
> I am a militant of the Plain English Movement, and when faced with the
> choice of using a common as opposed to a technical vocabulary, I try and
> use the former. However, there are occasions, like now, when the
> necessity of the precise delineation of a concept, requires us to use
> technical terms (with the proviso that we try and use them with clarity,
> for the sake of meaning, and not for effect).
>
> To insist on speaking and writing with an effort at clarity is not the
> same thing as writing in a way that is 'simple'. Sometimes 'clarity'
> requires a great deal of complexity. I am not a votary either of
> simplicity or of complexity in communication. It all depends on what we
> are talking about, and why we are speaking to one another.
>
> This list is a clearing house of ideas. Of observations, opinions,
> reflections and questions of all kind. As long as we abstain from
> uncalled for personal attacks (of which we have seen a few) I do not see
> why there should be one style (erudite or instinctive, learned or
> irreverent) on the list, or even in the postings a single person makes.
> So I would ask you what benefits we would receive if for instance, the
> tone of the communication here suddenly acquired a relative flatness,
> without precision or depth. I would be equally disappointed if, in the
> name of depth and presicion, we were to give up on spontaneous and
> instinctive writing, or humour and plain fun and games. I do not see why
> one has to take place at the expense of the other. Do you see any
> reasons why this should happen?
>
> And by the way, I do not quite see why writing while packing bags for
> Istanbul is either an ornament or a disadvantage to the fact of an
> attempt at communication. It is a fact. I do not have the privilege of
> sedentariness, my work takes me places, and makes me lose sleep. If we
> do not grudge anyone a situation of relative locational stability, then
> I fail to see why mobility should be such an issue.
>
> Mystified, I remain
>
> yours,
>
> Shuddha
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe
> in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>